CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 93Concrete and Cement Materials ResearchEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Life cycle assessment of alkali-activated materials: a systematic literature review

Open access
Nikravan, Morteza, Firdous, Rafia, Stephan, Dietmar·2023·Low-carbon Materials and Green Construction
DOI 10.1007/s44242-023-00014-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The physical–mechanical, chemical, and durability characteristics of alkali-activated materials (AAMs) have been widely investigated. However, a critical gap in the literature is the lack of a comprehensive overview of recently published literature regarding the life cycle assessment (LCA) of these binders. This study aims to fill that gap by conducting a systematic literature review of globally published literature on the topic. This paper consolidates knowledge by searching different databases, focusing on LCA studies that used AAMs as pastes, mortars, concretes, bricks, and rammed earth/soil blocks. The selected articles were reviewed and categorized based on precursors, alkaline activators, functional units, system boundaries, life cycle inventory databases, allocation, impact methodologies, and software used. Additionally, this paper also critically analyzes the key challenges of LCA for AAMs. The major challenges were identified as selecting a functional unit, subjectivity in boundary systems, and data interpretation. This work concludes that AAMs show substantial advantages in global warming potential compared to ordinary Portland cement-based materials; however, the average of other categories such as marine ecotoxicity and ozone layer depletion has been reported to be higher than for the reference samples.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s44242-023-00014-6

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 126

  1. Zakka, W. P., Abdul Shukor Lim, N. H., & Chau, Khun M. (2021). A scientometric review of geopolymer concrete. In Journal of Cleaner Production, 280, 124353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124353. · DOI
  2. Nawaz, M., Heitor, A., & Sivakumar, M. (2020). Geopolymers in construction - recent developments. Construction and Building Materials, 260, 120472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120472 · DOI
  3. Coppola, L., Coffetti, D., & Crotti, E. (2018). Pre-packed alkali activated cement-free mortars for repair of existing masonry buildings and concrete structures. Construction and Building Materials, 173, 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.034 · DOI
  4. Topçu, I. B., Toprak, M. U., & Uygunoǧlu, T. (2014). Durability and microstructure characteristics of alkali activated coal bottom ash geopolymer cement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 81, 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.037 · DOI
  5. Nguyen, H., Kaas, A., Kinnunen, P., Carvelli, V., Monticelli, C., Yliniemi, J., & Illikainen, M. (2020). Fiber reinforced alkali-activated stone wool composites fabricated by hot-pressing technique. Materials and Design, 186, 108315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108315 · DOI
  6. Brooks, R., Bahadory, M., Tovia, F., & Rostami, H. (2010). Properties of alkali-activated fly ash: High performance to lightweight. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 3(3), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2010.487162 · DOI
  7. Meek, A. H., Elchalakani, M., Beckett, C. T. S., & Dong, M. (2021). Alternative stabilised rammed earth materials incorporating recycled waste and industrial by-products: A study of mechanical properties, flexure and bond strength. Construction and Building Materials, 277, 122303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122303 · DOI
  8. Narayanaswamy, A. H., Walker, P., Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., Heath, A., & Maskell, D. (2020). Mechanical and thermal properties, and comparative life-cycle impacts, of stabilised earth building products. Construction and Building Materials, 243, 118096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118096 · DOI
  9. Kosarimovahhed, M., & Toufigh, V. (2020). Sustainable usage of waste materials as stabilizer in rammed earth structures. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 123279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123279 · DOI
  10. Poinot, T., Laracy, M. E., Aponte, C., Jennings, H. M., Ochsendorf, J. A., & Olivetti, E. A. (2018). Beneficial use of boiler ash in alkali-activated bricks. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 128, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.013 · DOI
  11. Petrillo, A., Cioffi, R., Ferone, C., Colangelo, F., & Borrelli, C. (2016). Eco-sustainable Geopolymer Concrete Blocks Production Process. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 8, 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.037 · DOI
  12. Dal Pozzo, A., Carabba, L., Bignozzi, M. C., & Tugnoli, A. (2019). Life cycle assessment of a geopolymer mixture for fireproofing applications. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(10), 1743–1757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01603-z · DOI
  13. Maddalena, R., Roberts, J. J., & Hamilton, A. (2018). Can Portland cement be replaced by low-carbon alternative materials? A study on the thermal properties and carbon emissions of innovative cements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 186, 933–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.138 · DOI
  14. Yao, Y., Hu, M., Di Maio, F., & Cucurachi, S. (2020). Life cycle assessment of 3D printing geo-polymer concrete: An ex-ante study. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 24(1), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12930 · DOI
  15. Sandanayake, M., Gunasekara, C., Law, D., Zhang, G., & Setunge, S. (2018). Greenhouse gas emissions of different fly ash based geopolymer concretes in building construction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 204, 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.311 · DOI
  16. Bajpai, R., Choudhary, K., Srivastava, A., Sangwan, K. S., & Singh, M. (2020). Environmental impact assessment of fly ash and silica fume based geopolymer concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254, 120147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120147 · DOI
  17. Turner, L. K., & Collins, F. G. (2013). Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: A comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 43, 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023 · DOI
  18. McLellan, B. C., Williams, R. P., Lay, J., Van Riessen, A., & Corder, G. D. (2011). Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(9–10), 1080–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.02.010 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Yang, K. H., Song, J. K., & Song, K. I. (2013). Assessment of CO 2 reduction of alkali-activated concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39, 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.001 · DOI
  20. Kvočka, D., Lešek, A., Knez, F., Ducman, V., Panizza, M., Tsoutis, C., & Bernardi, A. (2020). Life cycle assessment of prefabricated geopolymeric façade cladding panels made from large fractions of recycled construction and demolition waste. Materials, 13(18), 3931. https://doi.org/10.3390/MA13183931 · DOI
  21. Perez-Cortes, P., & Escalante-Garcia, J. I. (2020). Alkali activated metakaolin with high limestone contents – Statistical modeling of strength and environmental and cost analyses. Cement and Concrete Composites, 106, 103450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.103450 · DOI
  22. Abbas, R., Khereby, M. A., Ghorab, H. Y., & Elkhoshkhany, N. (2020). Preparation of geopolymer concrete using Egyptian kaolin clay and the study of its environmental effects and economic cost. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 22(3), 669–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01811-4 · DOI
  23. Passuello, A., Rodríguez, E. D., Hirt, E., Longhi, M., Bernal, S. A., Provis, J. L., & Kirchheim, A. P. (2017). Evaluation of the potential improvement in the environmental footprint of geopolymers using waste-derived activators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 680–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.007 · DOI
  24. Robayo-Salazar, R. A., Mejía-Arcila, J. M., & Mejía de Gutiérrez, R. (2017). Eco-efficient alkali-activated cement based on red clay brick wastes suitable for the manufacturing of building materials. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.243 · DOI
  25. Firdous, R., & Stephan, D. (2021). Impact of the mineralogical composition of natural pozzolan on properties of resultant geopolymers. Journal of Sustainable Cement-Based Materials, 10(3), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650373.2020.1809028 · DOI
  26. Asim, N., Alghoul, M., Mohammad, M., Amin, M. H., Akhtaruzzaman, M., Amin, N., & Sopian, K. (2019). Emerging sustainable solutions for depollution: Geopolymers. In Construction and Building Materials, 199, 540–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.043 · DOI
  27. Mathieson, J. G., Somerville, M. A., Deev, A., & Jahanshahi, S. (2015). Utilization of biomass as an alternative fuel in ironmaking. In Iron Ore: Mineralogy, Processing and Environmental Sustainability (pp. 581–613). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-156-6.00019-8 · DOI
  28. Provis, J. L., & van Deventer, J. S. J. (2014). Alkali Activated Materials (J. L. Provis & J. S. J. van Deventer (Eds.); Vol. 13). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7672-2 · DOI
  29. Juenger, M. C. G. (2019). Low CO2 cement for sustainable concrete. In Routledge Handbook of Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure (pp. 377–386). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315142074-20 · DOI
  30. Manz, O. E. (1997). Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in concrete and other products. Fuel, 76(8 SPEC. ISS.), 691–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-2361(96)00215-3 · DOI
  31. Duxson, P., & Provis, J. L. (2008). Designing precursors for geopolymer cements. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 91(12), 3864–3869. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2008.02787.x · DOI
  32. Pacheco-Torgal, F., Labrincha, J. A., Leonelli, C., Palomo, A., & Chindaprasirt, P. (2014). Handbook of Alkali-Activated Cements, Mortars and Concretes. In Handbook of Alkali-Activated Cements, Mortars and Concretes. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-16511-7 · DOI
  33. Peys, A., Arnout, L., Blanpain, B., Rahier, H., Van Acker, K., & Pontikes, Y. (2018). Mix-design Parameters and Real-life Considerations in the Pursuit of Lower Environmental Impact Inorganic Polymers. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 9(6), 879–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-9877-1 · DOI
  34. Di Maria, A., Salman, M., Dubois, M., & Van Acker, K. (2018). Life cycle assessment to evaluate the environmental performance of new construction material from stainless steel slag. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(11), 2091–2109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1440-1 · DOI
  35. Apithanyasai, S., Supakata, N., & Papong, S. (2020). The potential of industrial waste: using foundry sand with fly ash and electric arc furnace slag for geopolymer brick production. Heliyon, 6(3), e03697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03697 · DOI
  36. Salman, M., Dubois, M., Maria, A. D., Van Acker, K., & Van Balen, K. (2016). Construction Materials from Stainless Steel Slags: Technical Aspects, Environmental Benefits, and Economic Opportunities. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(4), 854–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12314 · DOI
  37. Coppola, L., Coffetti, D., Crotti, E., Gazzaniga, G., & Pastore, T. (2019). An Empathetic Added Sustainability Index (EASI) for cementitious based construction materials. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.160 · DOI
  38. Firdous, R., & Stephan, D. (2019). Effect of silica modulus on the geopolymerization activity of natural pozzolans. Construction and Building Materials, 219, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.161 · DOI
  39. Shi, C., Roy, D., & Krivenko, P. (2003). Alkali-Activated Cements and Concretes. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482266900 · DOI
  40. Werling, N., Dehn, F., Krause, F., Steudel, A., Schuhmann, R., & Emmerich, K. (2020). Solubility of Precursors and Carbonation of Waterglass-Free Geopolymers. Clays and Clay Minerals, 68(5), 524–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42860-020-00096-4 · DOI
  41. Toniolo, N., Rincón, A., Roether, J. A., Ercole, P., Bernardo, E., & Boccaccini, A. R. (2018). Extensive reuse of soda-lime waste glass in fly ash-based geopolymers. Construction and Building Materials, 188, 1077–1084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.08.096 · DOI
  42. Tchakouté, H. K., Rüscher, C. H., Kong, S., Kamseu, E., & Leonelli, C. (2016). Comparison of metakaolin-based geopolymer cements from commercial sodium waterglass and sodium waterglass from rice husk ash. Journal of Sol-Gel Science and Technology, 78(3), 492–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10971-016-3983-6 · DOI
  43. Peys, A., Rahier, H., & Pontikes, Y. (2016). Potassium-rich biomass ashes as activators in metakaolin-based inorganic polymers. Applied Clay Science, 119, 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2015.11.003 · DOI
  44. Perumal, P., Piekkari, K., Sreenivasan, H., Kinnunen, P., & Illikainen, M. (2019). One-part geopolymers from mining residues – Effect of thermal treatment on three different tailings. Minerals Engineering, 144, 106026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2019.106026 · DOI
  45. Ye, N., Yang, J., Liang, S., Hu, Y., Hu, J., Xiao, B., & Huang, Q. (2016). Synthesis and strength optimization of one-part geopolymer based on red mud. Construction and Building Materials, 111, 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.099 · DOI
  46. Jiang, M., Chen, X., Rajabipour, F., & Hendrickson, C. T. (2014). Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional, Glass Powder, and Alkali-Activated Slag Concrete and Mortar. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 20(4), 04014020. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000211 · DOI
  47. Klöpffer, W. (2006). The Hitch Hiker´s Guide to LCA - An orientation in LCA methodology and application. In The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (1 edition, Vol. 11, Issue 2). Studentlitteratur AB; https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.02.008 · DOI
  48. Adesanya, E., Ohenoja, K., Di Maria, A., Kinnunen, P., & Illikainen, M. (2020). Alternative alkali-activator from steel-making waste for one-part alkali-activated slag. Journal of Cleaner Production, 274, 123020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123020 · DOI
  49. Dontriros, S., Nooaek, P., & Supakata, N. (2020). Geopolymer bricks from concrete residue and palm oil fuel ash: Evaluating physical-mechanical properties, life cycle assessment and economic feasibility. EnvironmentAsia, 13(1), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.14456/ea.2020 · DOI
  50. Van den Heede, P., & De Belie, N. (2017). Sustainability assessment of potentially “green” concrete types using life cycle assessment. In Sustainable and Nonconventional Construction Materials using Inorganic Bonded Fiber Composites (Issue Cml). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102001-2.00010-3 · DOI
  51. Colangelo, F., Navarro, T. G., Farina, I., & Petrillo, A. (2020). Comparative LCA of concrete with recycled aggregates: A circular economy mindset in Europe. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(9), 1790–1804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01798-6 · DOI
  52. Tempest, B., Sanusi, O., Gergely, J., Ogunro, V., & Weggel, D. (2009). Compressive strength and embodied energy optimization of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. 3rd World of Coal Ash, WOCA Conference - Proceedings.
  53. Abdulkareem, M., Havukainen, J., Nuortila-Jokinen, J., & Horttanainen, M. (2021). Environmental and economic perspective of waste-derived activators on alkali-activated mortars. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280, 124651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124651 · DOI
  54. Marinković, S., Dragaš, J., Ignjatović, I., & Tošić, N. (2017). Environmental assessment of green concretes for structural use. Journal of Cleaner Production, 154, 633–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.015 · DOI
  55. Habert, G., D’Espinose De Lacaillerie, J. B., & Roussel, N. (2011). An environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: Reviewing current research trends. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(11), 1229–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.012 · DOI
  56. Shobeiri, V., Bennett, B., Xie, T., & Visintin, P. (2021). A comprehensive assessment of the global warming potential of geopolymer concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production, 297, 126669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126669 · DOI
  57. Ouellet-Plamondon, C., & Habert, G. (2015). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of alkali-activated cements and concretes. In F. Pacheco-Torgal, J. A. Labrincha, C. Leonelli, A. Palomo, & P. B. T.-H. of A.-A. C. Chindaprasirt Mortars and Concretes (Eds.), Handbook of Alkali-Activated Cements, Mortars and Concretes (pp. 663–686). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781782422884.5.663 · DOI
  58. Robayo-Salazar, R., Mejía-Arcila, J., Mejía de Gutiérrez, R., & Martínez, E. (2018). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of an alkali-activated binary concrete based on natural volcanic pozzolan: A comparative analysis to OPC concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 176, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.017 · DOI
  59. Fořt, J., Vejmelková, E., Koňáková, D., Alblová, N., Čáchová, M., Keppert, M., Rovnaníková, P., & Černý, R. (2018). Application of waste brick powder in alkali activated aluminosilicates: Functional and environmental aspects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, 714–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.181 · DOI
  60. Ramos, G. A., de Matos, P. R., Pelisser, F., & Gleize, P. J. P. (2020). Effect of porcelain tile polishing residue on eco-efficient geopolymer: Rheological performance of pastes and mortars. Journal of Building Engineering, 32, 101699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101699 · DOI
  61. Lee, J., Lee, T., Jeong, J., & Jeong, J. (2021). Mix design optimization and environmental impact assessment of low-carbon materials containing alkali-activated slag and high CaO fly ash. Construction and Building Materials, 267, 120932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120932 · DOI
  62. Cunningham, P. R., & Miller, S. A. (2020). Quantitative Assessment of Alkali-Activated Materials: Environmental Impact and Property Assessments. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 26(3), 04020021. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000556 · DOI
  63. Winnefeld, F., Gluth, G. J. G., Bernal, S. A., Bignozzi, M. C., Carabba, L., Chithiraputhiran, S., Dehghan, A., Dolenec, S., Dombrowski-Daube, K., Dubey, A., Ducman, V., Jin, Y., Peterson, K., Stephan, D., & Provis, J. L. (2020). RILEM TC 247-DTA round robin test: Sulfate resistance, alkali-silica reaction and freeze–thaw resistance of alkali-activated concretes. Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions, 53(6), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-020-01562-0 · DOI
  64. Gluth, G. J. G., Arbi, K., Bernal, S. A., Bondar, D., Castel, A., Chithiraputhiran, S., Dehghan, A., Dombrowski-Daube, K., Dubey, A., Ducman, V., Peterson, K., Pipilikaki, P., Valcke, S. L. A., Ye, G., Zuo, Y., & Provis, J. L. (2020). RILEM TC 247-DTA round robin test: Carbonation and chloride penetration testing of alkali-activated concretes. Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions, 53(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-020-1449-3 · DOI
  65. Bjørn, A., Owsianiak, M., Laurent, A., Olsen, S. I., Corona, A., & Hauschild, M. Z. (2017). Scope definition. In M. Z. Hauschild, R. K. Rosenbaum, & S. I. Olsen (Eds.), Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice (pp. 75–116). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_8 · DOI
  66. Fortsch, D. S. (2005). Wear impacts in slag grinding in various grinding technologies. IEEE Cement Industry Technical Conference Record, 2005, 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1109/CITCON.2005.1516360 · DOI
  67. Huseien, G. F., Hamzah, H. K., Mohd Sam, A. R., Khalid, N. H. A., Shah, K. W., Deogrescu, D. P., & Mirza, J. (2020). Alkali-activated mortars blended with glass bottle waste nano powder: Environmental benefit and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 243, 118636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118636 · DOI
  68. Alabduljabbar, H., Huseien, G. F., Sam, A. R. M., Alyouef, R., Algaifi, H. A., & Alaskar, A. (2020). Engineering properties of waste sawdust-based lightweight alkali-activated concrete: Experimental assessment and numerical prediction. In Materials, 13(23), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13235490. MDPI AG. · DOI
  69. Yang, K. H., Song, J. K., & Song, K. I. (2017). CO2 Reduction Assessment of Alkali-Activated Concrete Based on Korean Life-Cycle Inventory Database. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804524-4.00007-5 · DOI
  70. Frattini, D., Occhicone, A., Ferone, C., & Cioffi, R. (2021). Fibre-reinforced geopolymer concretes for sensible heat thermal energy storage: Simulations and environmental impact. Materials, 14(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14020414 · DOI
  71. Salas, D. A., Ramirez, A. D., Ulloa, N., Baykara, H., & Boero, A. J. (2018). Life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 190, 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.123 · DOI
  72. Kastiukas, G., Ruan, S., Liang, S., & Zhou, X. (2020). Development of precast geopolymer concrete via oven and microwave radiation curing with an environmental assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 255, 120290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120290 · DOI
  73. Perez-Cortes, P., & Escalante-Garcia, J. I. (2020). Design and optimization of alkaline binders of limestone-metakaolin – A comparison of strength, microstructure and sustainability with portland cement and geopolymers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273, 123118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123118 · DOI
  74. Jamieson, E., McLellan, B., Van Riessen, A., & Nikraz, H. (2015). Comparison of embodied energies of Ordinary Portland Cement with Bayer-derived geopolymer products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 99, 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.008 · DOI
  75. Gevaudan, J. P., & Srubar, W. V. (2017). Energy Performance of Alkali-Activated Cement-Based Concrete Buildings. AEI 2017: Resilience of the Integrated Building - Proceedings of the Architectural Engineering National Conference, 2017, 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480502.026 · DOI
  76. Matheu, P. S., Ellis, K., & Varela, B. (2015). Comparing the environmental impacts of alkali activated mortar and traditional portland cement mortar using life cycle assessment. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 96(1), 012080. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/96/1/012080 · DOI
  77. Fořt, J., & Černý, R. (2020). Transition to circular economy in the construction industry: Environmental aspects of waste brick recycling scenarios. Waste Management, 118, 510–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.09.004 · DOI
  78. Saade, M. R. M., Passer, A., & Mittermayr, F. (2020). (Sprayed) concrete production in life cycle assessments: a systematic literature review. In International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(2), 188–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01676-w. Springer. · DOI
  79. Hafez, H., Kurda, R., Cheung, W. M., & Nagaratnam, B. (2019). A systematic review of the discrepancies in life cycle assessments of green concrete. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 9(22), 4803. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9224803 · DOI
  80. Caldas, L. R., Da Gloria, M. Y. R., Pittau, F., Andreola, V. M., Habert, G., & Toledo Filho, R. D. (2021). Environmental impact assessment of wood bio-concretes: Evaluation of the influence of different supplementary cementitious materials. Construction and Building Materials, 268, 121146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121146 · DOI
  81. Pan, W., & Teng, Y. (2021). A systematic investigation into the methodological variables of embodied carbon assessment of buildings. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 141, 110840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110840 · DOI
  82. Martínez-Rocamora, A., Solís-Guzmán, J., & Marrero, M. (2016). LCA databases focused on construction materials: A review. In Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.243. Elsevier Ltd. · DOI
  83. Timm, J. F. G., Morales, M. F. D., & Passuello, A. (2019). Sensitivity Analysis of Life Cycle Impacts Distribution Methods Choice Applied to Silica Fume Production. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 323(1), 0–8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012131 · DOI
  84. Meek, A. H., Elchalakani, M., Beckett, C. T. S., & Grant, T. (2021). Alternative stabilised rammed earth materials incorporating recycled waste and industrial by-products: Life cycle assessment. Construction and Building Materials, 267https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120997 · DOI
  85. Petrillo, A., Cioffi, R., De Felice, F., Colangelo, F., & Borrelli, C. (2016). An environmental evaluation: A comparison between geopolymer and OPC concrete paving blocks manufacturing process in italy. Environmental Progress and Sustainable Energy, 35(6), 1699–1708. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12421 · DOI
  86. Yang, K. H., Lee, K. H., Song, J. K., & Gong, M. H. (2014). Properties and sustainability of alkali-activated slag foamed concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production, 68, 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.068 · DOI
  87. Niu, H., Abdulkareem, M., Sreenivasan, H., Kantola, A. M., Havukainen, J., Horttanainen, M., Telkki, V. V., Kinnunen, P., & Illikainen, M. (2020). Recycling mica and carbonate-rich mine tailings in alkali-activated composites: A synergy with metakaolin. Minerals Engineering, 157(March), 106535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2020.106535 · DOI
  88. Heath, A., Paine, K., & McManus, M. (2014). Minimising the global warming potential of clay based geopolymers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 78, 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.046 · DOI
  89. Ricciotti, L., Occhicone, A., Petrillo, A., Ferone, C., Cioffi, R., & Roviello, G. (2020). Geopolymer-based hybrid foams: Lightweight materials from a sustainable production process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 250, 119588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119588 · DOI
  90. Dahmen, J., Kim, J., & Ouellet-Plamondon, C. M. (2018). Life cycle assessment of emergent masonry blocks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171(October), 1622–1637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.044 · DOI
  91. PE International. (2014). GaBi Databases’ 14 content. University of Stuttgart: GaBi Software System, Leinfelden-Echterdingen / Germany. http://www.gabi-software.com/databases/gabi-databases.
  92. Garcia-Herrero, I., Margallo, M., Onandía, R., Aldaco, R., & Irabien, A. (2017). Environmental challenges of the chlor-alkali production: Seeking answers from a life cycle approach. Science of the Total Environment, 580, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.202 · DOI
  93. Duxson, P., Provis, J. L., Lukey, G. C., & van Deventer, J. S. J. (2007). The role of inorganic polymer technology in the development of “green concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research, 37(12), 1590–1597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.08.018 · DOI
  94. Thannimalay, L., Yusoff, S., & Zawawi, N. Z. (2013). Life Cycle Assessment of Sodium Hydroxide. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(2), 421–431.
  95. Hong, J., Chen, W., Wang, Y., Xu, C., & Xu, X. (2014). Life cycle assessment of caustic soda production: A case study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.009 · DOI
  96. Rojas-Duque, O., Espinosa, L. M., Robayo-Salazar, R. A., & de Gutiérrez, R. M. (2020). Alkali-activated hybrid concrete based on fly ash and its application in the production of high-class structural blocks. Crystals, 10(10), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst10100946 · DOI
  97. Font, A., Soriano, L., Tashima, M. M., Monzó, J., Borrachero, M. V., & Payá, J. (2020). One-part eco-cellular concrete for the precast industry: Functional features and life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 269, 122203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122203 · DOI
  98. Ziegler, D., Formia, A., Tulliani, J. M., & Palmero, P. (2016). Environmentally-friendly dense and porous geopolymers using fly ash and rice husk ash as raw materials. Materials, 9(6), 466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9060466 · DOI
  99. Cheah, C. B., Tan, L. E., & Ramli, M. (2021). Recent advances in slag-based binder and chemical activators derived from industrial by-products – A review. In Construction and Building Materials, 272, 121657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121657 · DOI
  100. Kočí, V., Petříková, M., Fořt, J., Fiala, L., & Černý, R. (2020). Preparation of self-heating alkali-activated materials using industrial waste products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, 121116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121116 · DOI
  101. Fawer, M., Concannon, M., & Rieber, W. (1999). Life cycle inventories for the production of sodium silicates. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 4(4), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979498 · DOI
  102. Arrigoni, A., Panesar, D. K., Duhamel, M., Opher, T., Saxe, S., Posen, I. D., & MacLean, H. L. (2020). Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of concrete containing supplementary cementitious materials: cut-off vs. substitution. Journal of Cleaner Production, 263, 121465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121465 · DOI
  103. Seto, K. E., Churchill, C. J., & Panesar, D. K. (2017). Influence of fly ash allocation approaches on the life cycle assessment of cement-based materials. Journal of Cleaner Production, 157, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.093 · DOI
  104. Saade, M. R. M., Da Silva, M. G., & Gomes, V. (2015). Appropriateness of environmental impact distribution methods to model blast furnace slag recycling in cement making. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 99, 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.03.011 · DOI
  105. Saade, M. R. M., da Silva, M. G., & da Silva, V. G. (2016). A novel perspective on the avoided burden approach applied to steel-cement making joint system. Sustainable Built Environment (SBE) Regional Conference Zurich, 2016, 310–314. https://doi.org/10.3218/3774-6_50 · DOI
  106. Abdulkareem, M., Havukainen, J., & Horttanainen, M. (2019). How environmentally sustainable are fibre reinforced alkali-activated concretes? Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.076 · DOI
  107. Habert, G. (2013). A method for allocation according to the economic behaviour in the EU-ETS for by-products used in cement industry. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0464-1 · DOI
  108. Schrijvers, D., Loubet, P., & Sonnemann, G. (2020). Archetypes of goal and scope definitions for consistent allocation in LCA. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(14), 5587. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145587 · DOI
  109. Teh, S. H., Wiedmann, T., Castel, A., & de Burgh, J. (2017). Hybrid life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from cement, concrete and geopolymer concrete in Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 152, 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.122 · DOI
  110. da Silva, M. G., Gomes, V., & Saade, M. R. M. (2018). The contribution of life-cycle assessment to environmentally preferable concrete mix selection for breakwater applications. Ambiente Construído, 18(2), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-86212018000200262 · DOI
  111. Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., Jullien, A., & Ventura, A. (2010). LCA allocation procedure used as an incitative method for waste recycling: An application to mineral additions in concrete. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(12), 1231–1240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.001 · DOI
  112. Chen, X., Wang, H., Najm, H., Venkiteela, G., & Hencken, J. (2019). Evaluating engineering properties and environmental impact of pervious concrete with fly ash and slag. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237, 117714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117714 · DOI
  113. Hafez, H., Kurda, R., Cheung, W. M., & Nagaratnam, B. (2020). Comparative life cycle assessment between imported and recovered fly ash for blended cement concrete in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118722 · DOI
  114. Hafez, H., Kurda, R., Al-Ayish, N., Garcia-Segura, T., Cheung, W. M., & Nagaratnam, B. (2021). A whole life cycle performance-based ECOnomic and ECOlogical assessment framework (ECO2) for concrete sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, 126060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126060 · DOI
  115. Lee, J., Lee, T., Lee, S., & Choi, H. (2020). Performance evaluation of cementless composites with alkali-sulfate activator for field application. Materials, 13(23), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13235410 · DOI
  116. Rosenbaum, R. K., Hauschild, M. Z., Boulay, A. M., Fantke, P., Laurent, A., Núñez, M., & Vieira, M. (2017). Life cycle impact assessment. In M. Z. Hauschild, R. K. Rosenbaum, & S. I. Olsen (Eds.), Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice (pp. 167–270). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_10 · DOI
  117. Nguyen, L., Moseson, A. J., Farnam, Y., & Spatari, S. (2018). Effects of composition and transportation logistics on environmental, energy and cost metrics for the production of alternative cementitious binders. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 628–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.247 · DOI
  118. Huseien, G. F., & Shah, K. W. (2020). Durability and life cycle evaluation of self-compacting concrete containing fly ash as GBFS replacement with alkali activation. Construction and Building Materials, 235, 117458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117458 · DOI
  119. Abhilash, H. N., Walker, P., Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., Heath, A., & Maskell, D. (2020). Compressive Strength of Novel Alkali-Activated Stabilized Earth Materials Incorporating Solid Wastes. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 32(6), 04020118. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0003188 · DOI
  120. Huijbregts, M. A. J., Steinmann, Z. J. N., Elshout, P. M. F., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M., Zijp, M., Hollander, A., & van Zelm, R. (2017). ReCiPe2016: A harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22(2), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y · DOI · Paper page
  121. Yang, Y., Heijungs, R., & Brandão, M. (2017). Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) does not necessarily yield more accurate results than process-based LCA. Journal of Cleaner Production, 150, 237–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.006 · DOI
  122. Agez, M., Muller, E., Patouillard, L., Södersten, C. J. H., Arvesen, A., Margni, M., Samson, R., & Majeau-Bettez, G. (2021). Correcting remaining truncations in hybrid life cycle assessment database compilation. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26(1), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13132 · DOI
  123. Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., Halog, A., & Cloutier, S. (2017). Systems thinking for life cycle sustainability assessment: A review of recent developments, applications, and future perspectives. In Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(5), 706. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050706 · DOI
  124. Su, D., Ren, Z., & You, W. (2020). Sustainable Product Development (D. Su (Ed.); Issue 281). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39149-2 · DOI
  125. Espuelas, S., Echeverria, A. M., Marcelino, S., Prieto, E., & Seco, A. (2018). Technical and environmental characterization of hydraulic and alkaline binders. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 1306–1313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.090 · DOI
  126. DIN EN 16757. (2021). Sustainability of construction works - Environmental product declarations - Product Category Rules for concrete and concrete elements. Belgium: CEN Brussels.

Metadata

Authors
Nikravan, M., Firdous, R., & Stephan, D.
Affiliations
Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Nikravan, Morteza
ORCID
Venue
Low-carbon Materials and Green Construction
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-04-05
Volume
1
Issue
1
ISSN
2731-6319 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/s44242-023-00014-6
OpenAlex
W4362594482
Cited by
93
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 6
FWCI
1.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Low-carbon Materials and Green Construction (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung (Ref 3.5 - 1157991- IRN – IKS)
  • Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (16KN046744)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Concrete and Cement Materials Research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Innovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Keywords
alkali-activated materials, life cycle assessment, environmental impact, global warming potential, Portland cement comparison, functional unit selection, system boundary definition, life cycle inventory data, alkaline activator, binders, rammed earth, soil blocks, marine ecotoxicity, ozone depletion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review